(This article is from The Times of India, and we put it here only for our internal members to study and research. If it violates the author’s copyright, please send e-mail to general@chinawealthplanning.com, and we will delete it immediately.)

The earning capacity and professional qualifications of a woman are to be considered when deciding on permanent alimony in a divorce case, the Bombay high court has said even as it declined a former air-hostess’s plea to increase the amount. 

A division bench comprising Justices B H Marlapalle and Ravi Deshpande rejected the petition taking into account the fact that Jaspreet, a resident of Mumbai, had obtained a diploma in fashion designing and planned to make a career in the city. 

The judges also nixed the contention of her ex-husband Jaspal, a senior employee with Air India, that there was no need for him to pay up and asked him to keep giving her Rs 20,000 per month or a lumpsum of Rs 20 lakh. 

“If she (Jaspreet) desires to stay in Mumbai or Delhi, it cannot be accepted that she will be without any professional or employment income in fashion design or any other related field,’’ said the judges. “She must stand on her own as a professional and she appears to have made her own arrangements with her sister to stay in Mumbai by choice and obviously to pursue a career. She cannot expect, as a matter of legal right, that the amount of permanent alimony must include the financial requirements for her stay in Mumbai or for that matter in Delhi.’’ 

Jaspal had moved the family court for divorce in 1997 after one-and-a-half years of marriage, alleging cruelty. Subsequently, the couple obtained divorce by mutual consent. While Jaspreet challenged the alimony amount of Rs 20,000, Jaspal opposed the alimony arrangement itself. Jaspreet claimed that her ex-husband earned around Rs 2 lakh per month and produced his income-tax returns between 2001 and 2003 which ranged from Rs 18 lakh to Rs 24 lakh. Jaspreet claimed 20-30% of this income as permanent alimony, arguing that she was “unemployed and was entitled to live a comfortable life till such time that she gets remarried’’. 

Jaspal opposed paying any alimony, claiming that Jaspreet had suppressed information about her employment. His lawyers further pointed out that it was not conceivable that Jaspreet, with a qualification in fashion designing, would remain unemployed. “On the contrary, in a city like Mumbai or Delhi she will get professional assignments or a job with a handsome salary,’’ they argued. 

The court upheld the order of alimony, but declined to enhance it. It said that if she chooses to remain in Mumbai, “she cannot claim any provision for her residence’’. The court also said that if the amount was paid in a lumpsum, Jaspreet could get a headstart in her career. 

On a request by Jaspal, the High Court stayed the order for six weeks on condition that he continues to pay the monthly maintenance. 

(The names of the couple have been changed to protect their identity.)

Published on our website on May.12, 2009